The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ken Smith)
Subject: Re: OT Standard Panel Sizes?
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:28:58 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: a2i network
References: <email@example.com> <3DF18783.38471AB0@mfi.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:28:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Originator: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ken Smith)
In article ,
Bob Wilson wrote:
>That's exactly what it is. As others have alluded to, the standard vertical
>increment (or "U") in a 19" panel system is 1.75". The system itself is a
>typical North American abortion of weird units and rather irrational
>dimensions. The 19" refers to the total width of the mounting flanges. Most
>companies have standardized on the actual shelf itself being 17" wide.
Since it started out as a "relay rack" I'm sure the dimensions actually
made a lot of sense for the size of relays that were being put in the rack
way back then. Today we are stuck with a standard dimension that no
longer relates to what we are putting in it.
>When the Europeans (like Schroff) tried to come up with a standard rack
I'm sure that if the Europeans had come up with a standard, 60 years from
now people would be cursing it for not fitting the "quantum field
generators that every transmat system uses"
Standards always seem to out live what they relate to. There is a long
and perhaps true story that ends with the punch line about the distance
between the rails on a train being based on the width to two horses rear
email@example.com forging knowledge
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup